I think most often gayness is genetic. For example, some males are born insensitive to testosterone and so develop physically as females although they are genetically male. IIRC, they are invariably gay. Some females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia are bombarded as fetuses with male hormones and develop external genitalia that appear more like boys than girls. A great many of them are gay. Suppose the hormones are slightly off balance so someone physically appears to be the sex they are, but their brains are unduly influenced by the opposite sex hormones. All of these variations of gender, if you will, are genetic. I personally have PCOS, which presents as an overabundance of male hormones. I also am gay. I have always thought these two things were more than coincidental. I once read of an individual who believed his entire life that he was male. He was married and middle aged. When he went to the hospital regarding another matter for some tests he then found out that lo and behold he had ovaries. This is why it always makes me crazy when people make moral judgments about gay people. I don’t believe that 99 percent of the time there is anything volitional about it. I think it’s wired in the brain.
This does not mean there is a biological advantage. There is no biological advantage to diabetes either, but it too is genetic.
You overlook the fact that daily injections of insulin are a) fun b) very attractive to members of the opposite sex, thus resulting in a higher rate of reproduction.
They have to do more with your arguement that assumes that humans can’t act inside society like cells act inside a human. In other words a mysterious force can say “its too crowded here, some of you guys need to be gay”. While nature may not seek to preserve itself societies do.
Yes, societies do try and preserve themselves, but this does not create genetic traits… The nucleotide configuration that “makes” somebody gay was around before we started to run out of resources. Saying it was “put” there by nature or society is rediculous.
Just to be as open to possibilities as possible, I would say it is POSSIBLE that society could have instigated (for lack of a better word) selection for gayness. If the word is spread that homosexuality is evil, this could trigger a sort of homophobic->secretly homosexual response, but it seems much more likely that homophobia results out of the same stuff that breeds racism and general xenophobia.
ok in reading my last response… I made a rediculous argument myself… The scenario described would not create a positive selection for gayness at all, the most it would do is on the psychological level to a) keep homosexuality on the minds of generations to come and b) make people that already had the gene more scared to be who they are and thereby more likely to try and lead heterosexual (read: reproductive) lives…
pohjonen: There is a difference between homosexuality and diabetes. First, homosexuality is far more common. Second, diabetes does not eliminate one from the next generation. Scientists tend to look for an adaptive reason for a genetic trait if it is prevelent and destructive to reproductive success. Homosexuality fits both of these catagories.
Societies are always running out of resources. A society that maintains an equilibrium of resources so it is not producing more babies than it can adequately take care of would do better than one that produced more babies that die because of a lack of resources.
Homosexuality is more common that types I and II diabetes? I’d like to see the cite for that one. Until I do I won’t believe it. Diabetes doesn’t eliminate a person from the next generation NOW. It used to.
And people who get diabetes now probably wouldn’t have in the past. The fact that the rate of diabetes is rising so rapidly is a big clue that the increase is not genetic.
Provide a cite for this. My recollection is that a lot of androgen-insensitive females discover this when they fail to get PREGNANT. Why would they be trying to get pregnant if they were lesbian?
One anecdotal instance (you) does not even begin to prove the case. I know a number of PCOS women who are straight (or bi, in one case). I know another woman with unexplained elevated testosterone who is straight.
Seems like the anecdotal evidence is solidly unconclusive.
By the way, when speaking of intersexed individuals, it is better to use terms such as “androphilic” or “gynophilic” instead of “straight” and “gay” because intersexed individuals are not clearly either male or female.
I think you may be confused as to what a genetic trait is. There is nothing in the genes of an individual fetus that cause it to be exposed to unusual hormone levels while in the womb. That is an environmental factor, at least from the perspective of the affected fetus. The tendency to have these unusual hormone levels in your womb might be related to the genes of the mother, but then again it might not. It could be caused by yet another external factor, such as diet, stress, illness, exposure to other hormones in the environment, or any number of other things.
I am pretty sure that both testosterone insensitivity and congenital adrenal hyperplasia are genetic. Testosterone insensitivity is the persons ability to be affected by testosterone. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia is when someone is producing too much testosterone.
The only way for a genetic trait to increase in frequency is through evolution. I don’t think anyone would claim that humans are evolving that rapidly.
I’m not saying that none of the new cases of diabetes have a genetic basis. What I am saying is that the reason that they are developing diabetes must be because of environmental factors. There is no way there can be 10-20% more diabetes genes in this generation compared to the last one (unless some really rapid evolution is going on). The genes must have been in the last generation, but didn’t cause diabetes as often as they do now due to environmental factors.
First, CAH and androgen insensitivity in fetuses are congenital traits of the fetuses. The male fetus is insensitive to its own androgens, and the female CAH fetus is making WAY too many androgens due to a congenital situation of her own adrenal glands. I’m not going to look up the cites for this, y’all can do that yourselves if you don’t believe me.
Second, I never said that ALL PCOS women were gay. For that matter, many gay people have not climbed out of the gene pool, so to speak. Lots of gay women and men have children.
And if any of you have ever been to a lesbian bar, you’ll notice that many (NOT ALL. NEVER ALL!) lesbians, look sound and act quite masculine. And I never said all homosexuality is genetic either. I just believe a most of it is. Sheesh.
And as for the diabetes, Dr. Lao, are you saying that the tendancy to acquire type II diabetes is NOT genetic? That all middle aged folks can acquire it if their environments are right?
No. What I am saying is that if two people have the exact same genes, one may aquire it and the other may not, depending on their environment. So one can imagine how the genes could become relatively common through genetic drift in the past, because most of the people lacked the right environment for diabetes to develop.
Okay, I sit corrected. This I wholeheartedly agree with. The Pima Indians being a prime example. For thousands of years, there were no Doritos or Twinkies. They are not genetically equipped to deal with the modern American diet and sedentary lifestyle.
My experience is contrary to this. Even though I’m not exactly sure of what acting masculine means to you, I have a general idea, and I have not seen it.